Saudi East-West Oil Pipeline

Douglas Lumsden Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin McCluskey]

The choice of sites is a national decision, involving the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem, in which we have a limited role. It is important that we have a diverse energy mix across the country, including renewables, so that we in this country have the most secure and resilient supply of energy.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

The parties that are talking down the North sea oil and gas workers are the Labour Government here and the SNP Government in Holyrood. The Conservative party is standing up for the North sea oil and gas workers. When I quizzed the Prime Minister on approving Jackdaw and Rosebank, he said that he would “take a pragmatic approach”, and that we would see that in action soon, but we now hear that there are further delays because the Labour party wants to save face in a central London by-election. At a time when our energy security is at risk, will the Government put the national interest above the interests of the Labour party and approve Jackdaw and Rosebank as a matter of urgency?

[Martin McCluskey]

Let me take that in two parts. First, this is obviously a decision that has to be taken carefully. The Secretary of State has to a make an assessment and a judgment. The hon. Member will know that the evidence has to come to the Secretary of State for her to make that judgment, and that is what she will do in due course. He will also know, as I said in response to an earlier question, that the North sea basin is a declining basin. We have to prepare for the transition. We are still extracting oil and gas from the North sea, and that will continue for decades to come.

Fracking Ban

Douglas Lumsden Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who made a passionate and utterly convincing case for the need for a green energy revolution and the benefits it would provide not only environmentally, but socially for the communities we are here to represent. We have heard fantastic arguments from across the House for a full ban on fracking. It is not just about the earthquake risks and the environmental damage to local communities, or because it is completely publicly unpopular, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out. British citizens do not want fracking, and banning fracking fully is a very popular policy. Fundamentally, however, there is one key reason why we must have a full ban on fracking, which is that we must keep fossil fuels in the ground. We know that we live in a hugely warming world.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

I understand the hon. Member’s view about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, but does she not agree that, while we still need fossil fuels, it is much better for jobs, for the environment and even for the Exchequer that we produce our own oil and gas rather than rely on imports from elsewhere?

[Dr Chowns]

Fossil fuels are traded globally. If we open up new production of fossil fuels, the reality is that that will do nothing for bills, do almost nothing for energy security and be a complete distraction from the investments we must make in the transition to the clean, green, renewable energy future that is our only hope of a sustainable economy not just in the long term, but in the short and medium terms. These are the industries of the future, and people who argue that we should continue to invest in typewriters during the era of the personal computer or continue to invest in horses and carriages during the era of the car are simply stuck in the past. We cannot continue to have our heads in the sand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) for securing this vital debate with the backing of the Backbench Business Committee.

I am very far from being an elder of this House, but I am among the minority of Members who saw the end of the Liz Truss premiership during the last Parliament. That period is most associated with the Truss-Kwarteng mini-Budget, but as the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) pointed out, it should really go down in history for its association with fracking. What few people recall is that the Truss era fractured, gave out volatile gases and combusted on 19 October 2022 with a Conservative party rebellion over the Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill. Forty Conservative MPs did not vote with their Government against an Opposition motion to ban fracking. Some Conservative MPs abstained because they were not in the House, but others abstained as a matter of principle, and I commend them. They included the former Minister Chris Skidmore, who was one of those principled MPs who would never vote in support of such a proposal. I want to set out why the rebels were right. It is fair to say that the moratorium is insufficient on two grounds: first because it is inadequate, and secondly because of climate change more broadly.

The moratorium came into effect in 2019 after serious concerns were raised about how fracking could cause damage to nature and our communities. However, a ban might not cover all forms of fracking and could potentially leave significant loopholes if that is not addressed. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) made an excellent speech, and I completely agree with her that at the moment we see the exclusion of small-scale fracking, often referred to as proppant squeeze. The guidelines in the Petroleum Act 1998 are outdated, defining the fracturing of rock for shale gas as involving

“the injection of…more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage…of the hydraulic fracturing”.

We need that loophole to be closed and a proper ban to be introduced.

In 2019 the Preston New Road fracking site in Lancashire recorded more than 120 seismic events. The British Geological Survey typically detects between 200 and 300 earthquakes across the country across the whole year. Before the fracking moratorium came into effect, drilling licences over shale gas reserves were issued across 127 constituencies in England and Wales, and there is a risk that communities will suffer from not just the seismic activity, but the polluted groundwater and the damage to natural habitats that flows from it. A full ban on fracking would provide certainty to our communities. The Minister for Energy has previously argued that the Government would need “objective evidence” in order to close those loopholes and include low-volume fracking in the ban. What additional evidence do the Government need?

There is large support in this country for a full ban on fracking—almost half the country believes we should not be fracking, and less than 30% of the British population support it. It can lead to water scarcity and risks polluting our air, our soil, our health and our biodiversity. Green space and nature are an intrinsic part of life in the UK, and we should be protecting our wildlife with everything we have. Ministers have previously suggested that all forms of fracking would be considered within the scope of a ban, and the former Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), told the 2025 Labour party conference:

“Let’s ban fracking and send the frackers packing.”

I welcome the point made by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who reminded us of some of the traditional Labour arguments about social justice, but also that they could apply to creating new jobs in new industries.

What the public do support is action to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. Eight in 10 people say that they are concerned about climate change—they want a transition to clean energy. In mid and east Devon, protecting our natural environment is a priority for thousands of people who have corresponded with me on the subject. Reports of nature in decline, and of the loss of our precious wildlife and biodiversity, are very concerning to them. I hope that this debate will not only protect communities from the damage of fracking now but, in a small way, help to protect future generations from the worst impacts of climate change. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) talked about the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground. We have just seen the hottest average summer temperatures on record, which are around 130 times more likely because of human-induced climate change.

Last year, 47% of all the electricity generated in the UK was generated from renewable sources. That represents a fourfold increase in renewables since 2012, far in advance of the pace of progress that was forecast. Yes, we will continue to need some oil and gas in the years to come, but why would anyone want us to hitch ourselves to the slow wagons—of which fracking is one—as other countries gallop away behind the technologies of the future?

[Douglas Lumsden]

The hon. Member has agreed that we will need oil and gas for years to come, so can he clarify the Liberal Democrats’ position? Do they support Rosebank and Jackdaw? Do they support new licences? Do they support jobs up in Aberdeen?

[Richard Foord]

I know that this is a local matter for the hon. Member, so he will be interested in my response. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about emissions resulting from the greater extraction of fossil fuels, both in UK waters and around the world. For oil in particular, the extraction exercise is pointless, given that we are exporting it so that other countries can refine it and take profits from it.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) referred to a similar point, and he made repeated references to treasure. For those who know the story “Treasure Island”, he is the Squire John Trelawney of this House: a rich landowner who pays for the ship, but talks too much and trusts the wrong people.

There is a real danger that investment in fracking will be a catastrophic mistake, as the fuels, facilities and resources become stranded assets. There is a real risk that they will lose their value prematurely as the tide of renewable technology advances around them. To finish where I started, I am concerned about the Conservative party’s journey towards political extinction. Polling suggests that support for any fracking is a complete misreading of where our constituents are. We Liberal Democrats could quietly gloat that the Conservative party has misread the room and enjoy the electoral dividends that that brings, but we would much rather that it returned to the consensus. Climate change is one of the gravest issues that our generation of politicians has been sent to this House to tackle. Let us not make a catastrophic mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Lumsden]

Does the Minister agree that if we produce our own oil and gas, that gives the Exchequer more money? If the Government want then to use that to take money off people’s bills, that is up to them.

[Martin McCluskey]

That is a different argument to the one the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness was making. What is clear is that it will not directly reduce the cost of energy in this country.

Recent years have shown that the answer is not to double down on fossil fuel production, but to reduce our dependence on those markets over time through clean, home-grown energy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) set out in his speech. That will ensure that our oil and gas workers and supply chains benefit from the clean energy transition and that we support prosperity, jobs, economic growth, communities and energy security. This Government’s approach is both clear and pragmatic: ending new licences and introducing transitional energy certificates, maintaining the effective moratorium and accelerating the transition to clean, home-grown energy that improves resilience, supports jobs, reduces emissions and gives consumers greater protections from global price shocks.

The House should be in no doubt. Our position is evidence based, and it is clear: we will not issue new onshore licences in England, and we will maintain the effective moratorium on fracking for shale gas, because the concerns that led to it have not been resolved. Together, these measures will ensure that fracking for shale gas is not taking place in England. We will continue to ensure that conventional oil and gas activities are properly distinguished, properly regulated and properly scrutinised. That is the responsible course of action for communities, for consumers and for our climate commitments, and for the country’s long-term energy security.

Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields

Douglas Lumsden Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katie White]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest in this area. He is right that we need to take our time with the process, respect its robustness and think about the implications. I know that the Secretary of State will be doing that, and will consider all the evidence that will be supplied to her.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

I must admit that I am angry and disappointed when I hear Members on other Benches seeming to cast aside jobs in my constituency. On 18 June, the people of Aberdeen South sent the huge message to both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Holyrood that they will not stand back and watch their jobs being destroyed. Every month, 1,000 jobs are being lost in the UK oil and gas industry. Every month, the Government dither and delay, which means more jobs lost. Does the Minister not accept that those workers deserve clarity, and not to have the decision kicked further down the road? They need assurance that their jobs will be saved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Lumsden Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

A shout-out to the energy and environment parliamentary knowledge scheme—there are some Members of this House who would really benefit from gaining some of that knowledge, I think. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue—I heard a lot of cheers from the Labour Benches. Geothermal has an important part to play and we have to accelerate the potential of all low-carbon energy sources, including geothermal. We will continue to look into the issues around planning, but we are also trying to build out heat network infrastructure that can be used to supply affordable low-carbon heat with a range of technologies, including geothermal, so that we can utilise that to deliver heat to consumers across the country. We will continue to look at what more we can do.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

My constituents know that best way to improve energy security and job security is to drill more. The Government may not want to hear this, but my constituents know it, the trades unions know it, and even the Labour MPs on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee know it. Will the Government approve Jackdaw and Rosebank as a matter of urgency to improve our energy security, to improve our job security and to improve our economy by billions of pounds?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on two specific projects that are under a process at the moment, but on his general point, let me say that oil and gas continues to come out of the North sea—24/7, right now. It is playing a part in our energy security, but we have also been a net importer for decades, so it can never be the only answer. This is about how we deliver oil and gas from the North sea for many decades to come, and build up what comes next. There is huge potential for his constituents in offshore wind in particular, which his Front Benchers refuse to back. He should tell his constituents why he supports a party that is against the new jobs of the future, which would help his constituents and those right across the north-east of Scotland.